O protectress of Christian that cannot be put to shame, O unfailing mediatrix before the creator, do not despise the prayerful voices of sinners, but in thy goodness hasten to assist us who trustfully cry out to thee: Inspire us to prayer, and hasten to hear our supplication. O Mother of God, intercede always in behalf of those who honour thee.

I've been at work all day, and I haven't read all the responses but, Montalban:

The Catholic church is free to interpret the Virgin Mary's words as it pleases. Does that mean just because the Catholic church says it and just because this apparition occured in a Catholic country, then the words of the Theotokos are to be interpreted in a Catholic way?

Not necessarily. The websites you quoted were Catholic sources so of course they will say that virgin Mary mean that Russia should become Catholic. In our point of view, perhaps the Panagia was really referring to the fall of communism being replaced by freedom of (Orthodox and truly "catholic") worship?

As for the sacred heart, it may not be as popular in the East, but neither is devotion to the "Protection of the Mother of God" or the Veil of the Theotokos in the West. I would think that the Virgin Mary has chosen different ways in which to show herself to the West versus the East, in the manner in which each society woudl understand and accept her message. Please do not refute me by saying that "then in that case, people in India have had apparitions of the BVM because she is one of the many forms of Vishnu." Thats complete bs.

Also in Orthodoxy, Virgin Mary is often likened to the " mystical lamp stand" "the fiery throne" "the fiery bush" such a metaphor such as "sacred heart."

O protectress of Christian that cannot be put to shame, O unfailing mediatrix before the creator, do not despise the prayerful voices of sinners, but in thy goodness hasten to assist us who trustfully cry out to thee: Inspire us to prayer, and hasten to hear our supplication. O Mother of God, intercede always in behalf of those who honour thee.

Several things to say...I am interested in open debate. To this I find you snipping away in attempts to point score by selectively addressing only those things you think you can win out on.

Thus you resort to truisms, and half-truths.

Let's spell this out.

Veronica Lueken claims that Mary is a mediatrix more akin to a co-redemptress/redemptrix. The anti-Veronica Lueken site I cited states that this is 'distorted'. I agree, it is. You seem confused as to whether it is or not, because you quote the Orthodox stance on her being a 'mediator' which I would imagine the Catholic Church has no problem with. However my point that groups of Catholics are pushing for a 'co-redemptrix' stance on Mary remains untrue, so you citing the Orthodox calling on Mary to mediate is at best an attempt at distraction, for Catholics 'in general' and Orthodox agree that she mediates. Unless you want to turn around now and defend Veronica Lueken's interpretation; you seem confused at what it is you're trying to attack.

If however you can show that the Orthodox stance is as equally 'distorted' then please post something.

Second you again are intent on ignoring the large body of my posts and thus you seem only wishing to point score when you think you can make a mark.

I can't compel you to engage in honest debate, but ignoring the large volume of works from Catholics determined to attack Orthodox Russia is not very good.

Such is your wish to provide apologies for the Catholic Church you now cite Orthodox stances in agreement with Catholics on the nature of Mary that are somehow meant to refute someone such as Veronica Lueken, whom you seem to disagree with.

I've been at work all day, and I haven't read all the responses but, Montalban:

The Catholic church is free to interpret the Virgin Mary's words as it pleases. Does that mean just because the Catholic church says it and just because this apparition occured in a Catholic country, then the words of the Theotokos are to be interpreted in a Catholic way?

Of course Catholics are free to interpret the appearence of this spectre (because it's not Mary) anyway they want. And I'm free to point out that i) in the Orthodox context, the visitations are suspect a)RCC has to invent a new category to explain why she visited kids "gratiae gratis datae" )http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/marian_apparitions.aspxb) they gave false predictions (such as when the war would end)andii) they should serve as a wake-up call to Orthodox who believe Catholics simply want to 'restore' the Catholic Church in Russia.

Not necessarily. The websites you quoted were Catholic sources so of course they will say that virgin Mary mean that Russia should become Catholic. In our point of view, perhaps the Panagia was really referring to the fall of communism being replaced by freedom of (Orthodox and truly "catholic") worship?

You seem to have partly understood those web-sites. Yes, they seek Russia to become Catholic. What you've missed is that this is a continual mission DESPITE the fall of Communism. The 'defence of the Church against godless Communism' was an excuse that they can't continue to use. It's like taking the cause bellum away, and one side still wants to fight.

As for the sacred heart, it may not be as popular in the East, but neither is devotion to the "Protection of the Mother of God" or the Veil of the Theotokos in the West. I would think that the Virgin Mary has chosen different ways in which to show herself to the West versus the East, in the manner in which each society woudl understand and accept her message. Please do not refute me by saying that "then in that case, people in India have had apparitions of the BVM because she is one of the many forms of Vishnu." Thats complete bs.

You've correctly argued against yourself, by showing the exact type of relativist argument that can be used vis a vie the Hindus. Let's expand this and say Jesus decided to 'appear' anyway He wished to the Hopi Indians, the Australian Aborigines and the Ainu of Japan.

You either believe that the Orthodox Church ios the Church or not. If you think Jesus established one church and then undermined his own words by popping up all over the world in different manifestations (and He'd be more likely to, than Mary), then that's up to you.As to what Orthodox believe...Speaking for the "fanatics," certainly no traditionalist Orthodox believer has ever disputed the fact that the Roman Catholic Church professes to be Christian. We simply believe that it has an errant Trinitarian doctrine, an un-Orthodox Christology (e.g., the theology of the "Sacred Heart"), an incorrect Mariology, and a faulty ecclesiology. We believe that it is separated from our Church, has lost Grace, and is outside the sphere of Orthodoxy, the only place where "Sister Churches" can possibly exist. Since Roman Catholics are without the Grace of Orthodoxy, not only their baptisms, but all of their sacraments are invalid within the Orthodox Church. It is for this reason, and not for "pastoral considerations," that the Great Church has consistently received Roman Catholics into Orthodoxy by Baptism. Political ecumenism, not the correction of its errors by Rome, and this divisive lie alone, accounts for any change in the current practices of the ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Â¦ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢cumenical Patriarchate.http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/maximos_reply.aspx

If I say "Mary is like a mystical lamp stand" that is a figure of speech. If I say that prayers should be committed to Mary's big toe, then that's a command to dedicate prayers to a part of Mary; not what Mary represents - and if you can find Orthodox praying to a 'mystical lamp stand' let me know some citations.

I hope you don't want to argue that the "Body and Blood of Christ" in the Eucharist is a metaphor.

I'm going to bed now cuz its late but as for the metaphor, ur right I do need to brush up on it. I meant a "type" of BV Mary.

In the Akathist Hymn, it refers a lot in the first couple of stanzas (after "To the theotokos, when the melody changes to "most Holy Th. save us!) to the mystical lamp stand. It's not a prayer TO the lamp stand. The Hymn as you prolly know is a hymn TO the Panagia and refers to representation from the OT etc.

I'll have to get back at the other points later but you do raise some very good ones @ that.

I can't compel you to engage in honest debate, but ignoring the large volume of works from Catholics determined to attack Orthodox Russia is not very good.

I checked some of the links which you had posted as having represented Catholic thought on "attacking" Orthodox Russia were either from fringe "traditionalist" Catholic sites (which dislike the Catholic Church as much as you seem to), or from sites of some far out, unapproved apparitions - neither of which would represent the official stance of the Catholic Church, or even the majority of Catholics.

In your time in the Catholic Church, had you ever heard from your priest to convert "them schismatic Orthodox" and consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary?

Personally, I doubt it.

Seeing as how the majority of your posts have been aimed against the Catholic church I can't help but wonder if perhaps you are just harboring some negativity and "convert baggage" - meaning once one has converted they must prove the truth of their newly found faith by criticizing their previous affiliations.

Let me take a quote from a post of BrotherAidan, which is from earlier in the thread and substitute "Carl Carlton" with your user name, "montalban" and "protestant" with "Catholic".

BTW, I heard Clark Carltonmontalban speak last year; he's been a convert along time and still seems bitter toward his protestantcatholic upbringing. Kind of sad - would have thought he would have found some healing by this point.

I checked some of the links which you had posted as having represented Catholic thought on "attacking" Orthodox Russia were either from fringe "traditionalist" Catholic sites (which dislike the Catholic Church as much as you seem to), or from sites of some far out, unapproved apparitions - neither of which would represent the official stance of the Catholic Church, or even the majority of Catholics.

I have already noted that there's a difference between the 'official' words of peace of the RCC and it's actions. IF you want to cite something from the Catholic Church with regards to the discontinuance of the 'mission' to convert Russia, you're free to do so.

Seeing as how the majority of your posts have been aimed against the Catholic church I can't help but wonder if perhaps you are just harboring some negativity and "convert baggage" - meaning once one has converted they must prove the truth of their newly found faith by criticizing their previous affiliations.

Let me take a quote from a post of BrotherAidan, which is from earlier in the thread and substitute "Carl Carlton" with your user name, "montalban" and "protestant" with "Catholic".

Given that the 'substance' of your rebuttal is nothing but to cast innuendo I look forward to an actual substantive discussion where you take a particular comment made (say from one of my 'fringe' citations and discuss it)

If you want to discuss the Fatima spectre at all, such as her false prediction about the end of WWI, please do so. But alas substance is missing from your posts.

I have already noted that there's a difference between the 'official' words of peace of the RCC and it's actions. IF you want to cite something from the Catholic Church with regards to the discontinuance of the 'mission' to convert Russia, you're free to do so.

The official position of Rome is to work towards corporate reunion with the Orthodox and thus not engage in one-to-one proselytism in Russia, a policy that Archbishop Tadeusz Kondrusiewicz has followed.

As part of the one-true-church claim Rome does passively and quietly accept such voluntary conversions but doesn't solicit them.

Fr Nicholas Gruner of the Fatima Priest site is a free-lancer, and has been for some time, with no standing anymore in the Roman Catholic Church. He no more speaks for Rome than former Archbishop Gregory of Colorado does for the Orthodox communion.

Given that the 'substance' of your rebuttal is nothing but to cast innuendo I look forward to an actual substantive discussion where you take a particular comment made (say from one of my 'fringe' citations and discuss it)

If you want to discuss the Fatima spectre at all, such as her false prediction about the end of WWI, please do so. But alas substance is missing from your posts.

The above looks like a case of "substance" use abuse.

To be honest with you, I am not concerned with Fatima in the least, nor any of the apparition's "false predictions".

Once again, I defer to "the young fogey". I have italicized and used bold to highlight the portions of the post which should inform you as to why I am unconcerned with Fatima.

Again, FÃƒÆ’Ã†â€™Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¡tima is not RC doctrine. (Neither is the prophecy of Blessed Anna Maria Taigi.) None of its practices are required of anyone.One can interpret it as describing the overthrow of Communism and the restoration of Russian Orthodoxy (a common view today) and/or the return of Russian Orthodoxy to communion with Rome (which isn't the same thing as Russia becoming Roman Rite and adopting devotions to the Sacred and Immaculate Hearts, etc.).

I was merely making light of your overuse of the word "substance", in an attempt to lighten the mood.

Apparently, the use of a "smiley face" did not help my point to come across.

Sigh. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š

Then why dwell upon it?

Why dwell upon it? Now that is funny. You're the one who repeated in an above post re: that it's not dogma and you've even underlined it bringing this to my attention, even thougha) I've not stated it is dogmaandb) you seem to wish to keep posting that you're not really interested in it, but you keep replying on this issue. you need to make up your mind.

And I note you've still avoided the question re: which 'fringe' post is wrong with regards the conversion of Russia. I half expect you to re-enter this debate, make another attempt at point scoring, then say you're not really interested in the subject (again! )

Not dogma, but still..."...by a decree dated 1 January 1996, it inscribed the commemoration of the Immaculate Heart of Mary as obligatory in the universal Roman Calendar."http://www.crc-internet.org/JP1/ch3.htm

Montalban, as for the "false dates" given in the apparitions, such things have occured in Orthodoxy. Many times the Theotokos has been credited for saving Constantinople from the barbarians. Thus the popular Akathist Hymn is chanted in honour of Her and the hymn "To You the Champion Leader" was written up.

However, in 1453, after an Akathist was chanted, the icon of the Theotokos fell from the hands of the people carrying it and a day(s) later, the City fell to the Turks.

So, because "The Theotokos let the City fall to the Turks" does that mean that us venerating the theotokos as "protectress and champion leader" wrong? Maybe we should stop chanting this Hymn, after all, its origins lie in the protection of the City.

Montalban, as for the "false dates" given in the apparitions, such things have occured in Orthodoxy. Many times the Theotokos has been credited for saving Constantinople from the barbarians. Thus the popular Akathist Hymn is chanted in honour of Her and the hymn "To You the Champion Leader" was written up.

However, in 1453, after an Akathist was chanted, the icon of the Theotokos fell from the hands of the people carrying it and a day(s) later, the City fell to the Turks.

So, because "The Theotokos let the City fall to the Turks" does that mean that us venerating the theotokos as "protectress and champion leader" wrong? Maybe we should stop chanting this Hymn, after all, its origins lie in the protection of the City.

That's a silly comparison. It's like saying that God has let us down because of some tragedy. Just because the people called upon Mary to intervene, and she didn't apparently, doesn't mean the same as a 'vision' appearing and saying something that wasn't true.

Look at the difference between me asking you to help, and you don't, to you telling me you'll help, and you don't.

One is an active act, a lie. The other is just me hoping for something.

That seems a nasty bit of Byzantinocentrism. As has been written here, yes, the Armenians do use them.

It's not, actually. I forget the exact details, but there are a couple of things involved. First of all, the Chalcedonian Orthodox Church believes that the meal that Jesus had the "last supper" at with his disciples was not the passover meal, as might seem to be the case in the synoptic gospels, where unleavened bread would have been used. Rather, we take the lead of the Gospel of John, which indicates that it was a fellowship meal. In this case, leavened bread would have been used. I've also seen it written elsewhere that it's important that the bread be leavened for a few reasons, some of which (I think) are that the wheat used in the bread has been changed by humans into something different. (That is, God's gift to us has been made into something different through our effort to be offered back to him:it's not just plain wheat.....or "partial" bread, which unleavened bread could be viewed as being. The same goes for the wine used at the Eucharist: we don't use grape juice, which is more or less the gift as we received it from God, but something changed from the original gift into something that we offer back to Him:wine.) I believe that the leaven is supposed to be important also in the sense that it represents, as it were, the resurrection of Christ.

Quote

As for the Immaculate Conception, both sides teach that Mary is immaculate. The difference is to do with how the East describes original sin, which is very hard to explain without making it seem like the Pelagian heresy so I'm not going to try. (Perhaps somebody with theological credentials can have a go at it.) One can fairly say that the RC definition, using Western concepts, isn't needed in the Orthodox theological system.

I'll take a crack at this Not only is it not needed, it's simply wrong. The Immaculate Conception says that Mary was made free from all stain of original sin at the time of her conception. For the Orthodox, this makes her somehow "superhuman", and takes away her solidarity with the human race. For the fantastic thing about the Theotokos is that she chose, in cooperation with the grace of God, to be completely obedient to God in every way. It's a reminder to us that we are also able to choose this most excellent way, if we wish, just like the Mother of God, if we call on God to help us.

The Latin Church feels the need to dogmatize the Immaculate Conception because of the Great influence that St. Augustine had on the theology of the West. The later Western interpreters of Augustine, if not Augustine himself, seemed to believe that we inherit not just the results of Adam's sin (death), but also the guilt for his sin. So the West sees a need to somehow separate the Theotokos from this guilt. In the East, we acknowledge that all humanity shares the results of Adam's sin. (Each one of us is just a unique personal manifestation of the one human nature. We are all connected to each other, so if one member of the human race sins, we are all affected. Of course, if one member of the human race does good, we are all affected in this way too!) But we do not believe that we share the responsibility for the sin of Adam. Hence, the Theotokos was born a normal human being, just like every one of us. It is for this reason that I also believe that it is important to believe that Mary died. She shares in all the characteristics of fallen humanity, except that she did not sin herself. (There are some who believed that she did sin. We had a big discussion about this a few months ago. Personally, I don't think anyone should believe that she sinned.) You can believe that she was assumed to heaven after her death if you wish, but as far as I can remember, as Orthodox believers it is important for us to believe that she died first.

BTW, "immaculate" is a loaded term of Latin derivation. It refers indirectly to the "spot" of original sin, since immaculate more or less literally means "without a spot" or "mark". IMHO, we Orthodox really should refer to the Theotokos in English as "most pure" or something similar.

Quote

Mary's dying or not isn't doctrine on either side. The original story from the East, as shown in icons, says she did before being assumed body and soul into heaven.

Which seems to agree that the matter isn't defined to them. I've had the notion of two waiting rooms described to me by an Orthodox here as what Orthodoxy teaches, which I think is what Pravoslavbob means by not believing in a middle state. That nicely covers the practice of praying for the dead from that point of view.

Actually, I mean just what I wrote. There is no one dogmatic position that an Orthodox believer must hold regarding a middle state of some kind after death. You can believe in a waiting room if you want. You can believe in a number of things. But you are not obligated to believe anything at all about a middle state.

As for Immaculate Conception, I don't believe exactly in the way Catholics do, unless the Orthodox church is misunderstanding it. After all, the Theotokos did appear in France to St. Bernadette Soubirous telling her she was the "Immaculate Conception".

Well, that's what people in the Latin Church have interpreted St. Bernadette's words to be, anyway. I have an amusing story about this. I used to have a priest who was an Anglican priest before his conversion to Orthodoxy. At his Anglican seminary, there was a wonderful old and very English professor who once said to his class that "saying that 'I am the Immaculate Conception' makes about as much sense as announcing that 'I am the diamond jubilee!'"

Why dwell upon it? Now that is funny. You're the one who repeated in an above post re: that it's not dogma and you've even underlined it bringing this to my attention, even thougha) I've not stated it is dogmaandb) you seem to wish to keep posting that you're not really interested in it, but you keep replying on this issue. you need to make up your mind.

Sigh.

When I said, "Why dwell upon it", I meant Fatima as a whole, not whether or not it was dogma.

I really have no idea why an Orthodox Christian is concerned with a Catholic apparition, which is not considered dogmatic as it is a private revelation and does not need to believed by anyone.

One can interpret it as describing the overthrow of Communism and the restoration of Russian Orthodoxy (a common view today) and/or the return of Russian Orthodoxy to communion with Rome (which isn't the same thing as Russia becoming Roman Rite and adopting devotions to the Sacred and Immaculate Hearts, etc.).

As young fogey's post says, one can interpret the conversion of Russia in different ways. Show me something from the Vatican, or at least a reputable reference from a respected group who is in communion with Rome which says that Russia must be converted to the Catholic faith.

Insofar as the conversion of Russia is concerned as "the young fogey" said,

As young fogey's post says, one can interpret the conversion of Russia in different ways. Show me something from the Vatican, or at least a reputable reference from a respected group who is in communion with Rome which says that Russia must be converted to the Catholic faith.

Again, I’ve already accepted that it can be interpreted in different ways.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean, as I am not trying to engage you in some kind of "apologetic debate".

You’re not engaging me in any kind of debate. Unless you think debate is to ignore a persons questions and to repeat statements such as these are ‘fringe’ cites (innuendo regards to their truth), or that as an ex-Catholic you can ‘publicly speculate’ as to my motives (innuendo), or that you can repeat ad infinitum that it’s not dogma to believe in FatimaÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚Â¬Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¦ which as I’ve noted again and again I recognise, but have also added that the Pope, the leader of Catholics believes in it, and that shrines are being raised in honour of this spectre — and in Russia

Given you’re still going on with this style of discussion there’s not going to be any real progress on any issue. You might consider answering my questions.

Well, that's what people in the Latin Church have interpreted St. Bernadette's words to be, anyway. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š I have an amusing story about this. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š I used to have a priest who was an Anglican priest before his conversion to Orthodoxy. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š At his Anglican seminary, there was a wonderful old and very English professor who once said to his class that "saying that 'I am the Immaculate Conception' makes about as much sense as announcing that 'I am the diamond jubilee!'"

I think it was Catherine of Sienna who argued against the Immaculate Conception; and she claimed to get visions from Mary too!

"The Immaculate ConceptionLet's take the Immaculate Conception first. As you probably know, the Immaculate Conception of Mary was declared to be a dogma of the Church in 1854. Before that time, it was merely what we call a theolegoumenon (a theological opinion). Thus, before the Church solemnly defined it in 1854, Catholics were free to either believe in the Immaculate Conception or reject it. Indeed, even some of our greatest Catholic saints, such as Thomas Aquinas and Bernard of Clairvaux...had serious problems with the idea that she was conceived without original sin (although they believed she was personally sinless). Yet, despite this, there were also others in the Church, such as St. Bonaventure and Blessed Duns Scotus who championed the Immaculate Conception. So, the Immaculate Conception was a debated question in the Church for centuries."http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a28.htm

Some Orthodox might think that the Fatima spectre is from God. Reasons to doubt this have been stated, including the visitations were to kids, they involve dedication to a part of a person, the prophecies were inaccurate and were directed to converting Russia etc.

One Catholic has entered this debate saying the sites I cited were 'fringe' Catholic sites. I asked what within these sites that I cited does he dispute? Silence.

I noted that belief in Fatima is not dogma. I also noted that the Pope visited it, continued to praise the message (post #60), and places dedicated to the spectre are being opened in Russia and its cult is spreading there. Despite the fall of communism the 'mission' to Russia continues. And yes I agree that the message may be viewed by 'some' as meaning a fight against Communism, but as just noted, the cult is spreading despite the fall of Communism. Russia is still the target by Catholics BECAUSE of this spectre's faulty warning.

Another Catholic has restated its not dogma. I accept this (still). It doesn't negate the points I just raised. And the question still remains unanswered. All I get is the evasive "I don't care about it, so why should you", to which I've already addressed in the points as to why Orthodox should be wary of putting faith in an aspiration from outside the church.

Innuendo has been raised; questions as to my motives, etc. as an ex-Catholic. Still the question remains unanswered (repeated in various posts, such as #52). Repeats of 'it's not dogma', and 'I don't care" go on now like a mantra. Innuendo about the sites themsevles remain; they're 'fringe' sites. Then why's the Catholic Church still pushing the Fatima visitations into Russia?

In regard to how the Fatima visions could be true about Russia and Catholicism, or if the children of the Fatima visions saw the same thing 'from their side'.

St. John of Kronstadt (+1908): “I foresee the restoration of a powerful Russia, still stronger and mightier than before. On the bones of these martyrs, remember, as on a strong foundation, will the new Russia we built - according to the old model; strong in her faith in Christ God and in the Holy Trinity! And there will be, in accordance with the covenant of the holy Prince Vladimir, a single Church! Russian people have ceased to understand what Rus’ is: it is the footstool of the Lord’s Throne! The Russian person must understand this and thank God that he is Russian”.

“The Church will remain unshaken to the end of the age, and a Monarch of Russia, if he remains faithful to the Orthodox Church, will be established on the Throne of Russia until the end of the age.”

In regard to how the Fatima visions could be true about Russia and Catholicism, or if the children of the Fatima visions saw the same thing 'from their side'.

St. John of Kronstadt (+1908): “I foresee the restoration of a powerful Russia, still stronger and mightier than before. On the bones of these martyrs, remember, as on a strong foundation, will the new Russia we built - according to the old model; strong in her faith in Christ God and in the Holy Trinity! And there will be, in accordance with the covenant of the holy Prince Vladimir, a single Church! Russian people have ceased to understand what Rus’ is: it is the footstool of the Lord’s Throne! The Russian person must understand this and thank God that he is Russian”.

“The Church will remain unshaken to the end of the age, and a Monarch of Russia, if he remains faithful to the Orthodox Church, will be established on the Throne of Russia until the end of the age.”

[quote author=ÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ÂÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ÂµÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ÂºÃƒÆ’Ã‚ÂÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¾ÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¬ÃƒÆ’Ã‚ÂÃƒâ€šÃ‚ÂÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¹ÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¿ÃƒÆ’Ã‚ÂÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¡ link=topic=8380.msg111731#msg111731 date=1142440337]I think Nazi Germany or even the Ottoman empire could give them a run for their money. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š [/quote]I agree.

[quote author=ÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ÂÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ÂµÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ÂºÃƒÆ’Ã‚ÂÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¾ÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¬ÃƒÆ’Ã‚ÂÃƒâ€šÃ‚ÂÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¹ÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¿ÃƒÆ’Ã‚ÂÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¡ link=topic=8380.msg111891#msg111891 date=1142527769]Definetly not one of the more Orthodox moments in Russian history. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š Being barbaric towards fellow Christians. [/quote]

You mean that they defended themselves against Catholic aggression? What about the Crusade of 1204, should Orthodox have fought back?

ÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ÂÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ÂµÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ÂºÃƒÆ’Ã‚ÂÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¾ÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¬ÃƒÆ’Ã‚ÂÃƒâ€šÃ‚ÂÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¹ÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¿ÃƒÆ’Ã‚ÂÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¡, do tell me more about your avatar of Elder Joseph's chapel. Where is it, who was he, have you seen it?

This is an incredibly politically incorrect inquiry on this board by an EO to other EO...but here's my question, and I have wondered about this virtually since I learned of the sacking of Constantinople by the Crusaders when I first began learning about Orthodoxy.

Just how did Crusaders, hundreds of miles from home, manage to sack an Imperial capital?Was the Byzantine empire that far in decline and that weakened internally by that point in history?Shouldn't they have crushed them like an ant?

Second question:Some EO, treat the sacking of Constantinople like a fresh, open wound that happened only yesterday. Where in this does "forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us" apply?

This is an incredibly politically incorrect inquiry on this board by an EO to other EO...but here's my question, and I have wondered about this virtually since I learned of the sacking of Constantinople by the Crusaders when I first began learning about Orthodoxy.

Just how did Crusaders, hundreds of miles from home, manage to sack an Imperial capital?

Second question:Some EO, treat the sacking of Constantinople like a fresh, open wound that happened only yesterday. Where in this does "forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us" apply?

They didn't just attack and capture the city. They persecuted Orthodox. They stole from the city; some items are still in Venice. In 1205 the Crusaders place Mt. Athos under Latin control and there were some here who were martyred for our faith.

The Athonite community was mortally threatened by the sacrilegious domination of a great part of Byzantine territory, including Athos, by the crusaders of the Fourth Crusade (1204). Now the HM, by a letter of Pope Innocent III (27 November 1206), was made subject politically to the ‘state’ of Thessaloniki under Boniface of Montserrat, and ecclesiastically to the ‘Bishop’ of Samareia-Sebasteia, a papal titular bishopric in Thrace (PL 215, 1030). From this point on, tyranny, pillaging, humiliations and murder became a way of life. The monasteries "were at once wiped out and utterly collapsed, and those living in them were slaughtered like sacrificial victims" (PG 145, 432 et seq., 140, 1061 BC).http://www.mountathos.gr/active~mode~en{a5e1747a-01bb-4ca0-8ee5-5cc83c8b617a}View.html

from the link you provided it appears there was some internal treachery by Greeks against Greeks and that the crusade had been usurped by continental european politial intrigue and was NOT ordered by the pope.

so europeans attacked asia minor; it wasn't the Latins vs. the Greeks; it just so hapened that the europeans had a Western Church affiliation

to this day Christians put nationality over Church, even EO against EO (read the thread about Macedonia, if I have undestood it correctly)

I think it is time to "get over" Constantinople 1204; it would be like Texans still taking "remember the Alamo" seriously against Mexico

Orthodoxy needs to quit licking old wounds and get on with the work of the kingdom of God.One can't always just say " we have right worship and right belief" and meanwhile it is the blue collar evangelicals running the local soup kitchen and shelter and the liberal protestants running the food bank

and who is even bothering with the millions of people that have never darkened the door of a church, post-moderns for whom religion is totally outside their experience? For whom Starbucks or a Sunday morning jog or walk with the dogs or coffee on the back deck is a more viable option than church? As soon as one even mentions this (the dreaded "e" word -- evangelism), the response is,"well we don't go door to door and pressure people like the evangelicals do; we are there for anyone who wants to 'come and see'" - which seems to me to be a nice excuse for sitting ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š on our collective arses.

For alot of Orthodox churches, I'm afraid it is going to be, "when the last ethnic Orthodox fully assimilates to North American culture, please blow out the candles and turn off the lights"

It's like asking contemporary white americans to make reparations for slavery. Just what do Orthodox want Roman Catholics to do about 1204? If they did do anything satisfactory all it would do is take away something for some Orthodox to feel sorry about themselves about.

Four years into this and alot of what I converted for just gets thwarted by the sos just getting rehashed and rehashed over and over again.

I apologize to whomever I am offending in writing this, but please, take a step back and listen to yourselves.

Who really has any ancestral connection to anyone who lived in Constantinople in 1204? And if they did, SO WHAT? That was 800 years ago!

the persecution of Russian Orthodox Christians under communism was a hundredfold worse than Constantinople 1204, yet people of other jurisdictions feel free to cast stones about how the Russian diaspora handled an unprecedented situation: whether metropolia (they are sell-outs), OCA (they shouldn't have autocephaly), ROCOR (oh they are not canonical), Russian Church Abroad (they're extreme). Well, how ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š woud YOU have handled it? ( and don't EVEN get me started on the shameful Antiochian bashing that goes on here and the still worse Western Rite bashing)

It's tiresome and demoralizing.

Rather than bash Catholics or protestants, how about inviting some pagan at work to church?How about telling a neighbor, not about prostrations and nuances of liturgy, but that God so loved the world that He sent His only Son - to meet them in their despair and sin.

Maybe I am still too protestant, but shouldn't we convert people to CHRIST, then bring them into the fullness of the Church. Oh, I forgot -- we don't evangelize! Sorry that our Lord said to go into ALL the world and preach the gospel and make disciples of all nations. If that's not evangelism, then what on earth is it?

Really, help me out here because I am getting very frustrated and very confused. We're the true Church, but the only way in is to stumble upon it. I've read time and again on this board about cranky priests making catechumenates almost intentionally difficult. Did Cyril and Methodius do that? Did Paul of Tarsus? The pat answer is that in their spiritual wisdom they are doing this for the benefit of the catechumen. Are you sure of this? Is the priest that spiritual and in tune with the Holy Spirit? Especially in the decline of the current world Christian community. Are there any REAL spiritual fathers left? Any true staresky?

I think we're (OC.net post-ers) a bunch of blind people leading the blind. I wonder why I even post. I'm no better and probably a whole lot worse. The only I have going for me is that I have been aroung the block a few times in my almost 51 years and I have known some awesome Christians who have been Presbyterian, Baptist, Roman Catholic (really, ALOT of Roman Catholics), Anglican, Antiochian Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, Serbian Orthodox (sorry, I'm not leaving anyone out but I don't have any acquaintances among other jurisdictions)

...and don't EVEN get me started on the shameful Antiochian bashing that goes on here...

Sounds to me like you attend an Antiochian parish and are being defensive about it. There has been GOA and OCA bashing as well, so you're not alone. There wouldn't be bashing if there wouldn't major issues to bash about.